Changes to OC?

BB62 · Feb 23, 2015

Ezek said:
Unfortunately, their prohibition through the extremely costly court fines is rather effective...

"Extremely costly court fines"? Do tell us what those extremely costly court fines are, please!

Ezek said:
...why I would rather avoid the potential to be bankrupted fighting it. unless your willing to foot the bill.

Maybe you can point out where I said YOU had to fight the matter? I simply said "Find me a Missouri city which is willing to take their (IMHO unconstitutional) prohibition on OC to court, and I (or we) will put them to the test." My offer still stands.

Ezek said:
...unless your (you're) willing to foot the bill.

I would consider footing the bill for someone who read carefully what I have repeated twice (and engaged in on-point discussion), but for you - no way.

BB62 · Feb 23, 2015

REALteach4u said:
... The bigger problem is that the police can now use open carry as cause to stop and check you for a CCW permit...

And such beliefs will continue to function as intimidation as long as you and other Missourians let it be that way.

If you're not willing to put your butt on the line, then find me a Missouri city which is willing to take their (IMHO unconstitutional) prohibition on OC to court, and I will put them to the test. I'll bet you can't.

Ezek · Feb 23, 2015

BB62 said:
"Extremely costly court fines"? Do tell us what those extremely costly court fines are, please!

Maybe you can point out where I said YOU had to fight the matter? I simply said "Find me a Missouri city which is willing to take their (IMHO unconstitutional) prohibition on OC to court, and I (or we) will put them to the test." My offer still stands.

I would consider footing the bill for someone who read carefully what I have repeated twice (and engaged in on-point discussion), but for you - no way.

you have court costs, for one, these can range in price, you have legal counsel fees for two, and finally you have the charges themselves, and their associated cost.

unfortunately, finding a city that will take it on will probably require you to OC in that city, get stopped by police, fail to produce a CCW license, because you don't have one, be cited, and given a court date. and some officers may even arrest you.

also I already figured you wouldn't foot the bill for me, I never trusted you to provide that kind of support for your belief, enacted through another. so go ahead and do the OCing in these municipalities without a CCW for us then, and be your own damn guinea pig.

BB62 · Feb 23, 2015

Ezek said:
you have court costs, for one, these can range in price, you have legal counsel fees for two, and finally you have the charges themselves, and their associated cost.

unfortunately, finding a city that will take it on will probably require you to OC in that city, get stopped by police, fail to produce a CCW license, because you don't have one, be cited, and given a court date. and some officers may even arrest you.

also I already figured you wouldn't foot the bill for me, I never trusted you to provide that kind of support for your belief, enacted through another. so go ahead and do the OCing in these municipalities without a CCW for us then, and be your own damn guinea pig.

blah, blah, blah.

OC for ME · Feb 23, 2015

The Arch Walk is a example of a municipality not desiring to challenge the current wording of Art I, Sec 23. If that language, A5, is nixxed based on the case before, or going to, the MO Supremes then the issue becomes complicated. If the Supremes do not nix the current language I suspect that no municipality will chance having their #1 intimidation tool tossed. But, it will take a cop to get the ball rolling. I have yet to have a cop stop me to check for my endorsement. I do little OCing during winter but I do not subscribe to the "concealed means concealed" mantra. In fact I am OCing cuz the bottom of my holster protrude beyond the bottom of my Carhart jacket.

BB62 · Feb 23, 2015

OC for ME said:
The Arch Walk is a example of a municipality not desiring to challenge the current wording of Art I, Sec 23. If that language, A5, is nixxed based on the case before, or going to, the MO Supremes then the issue becomes complicated. If the Supremes do not nix the current language I suspect that no municipality will chance having their #1 intimidation tool tossed. But, it will take a cop to get the ball rolling...

Yep.

Kopis · Feb 23, 2015

I'd recommend that you never take advice from a bass pro employee. After all, he is likely making around minimum wage. Do your own research.

I've noticed that all sports stores like bass pro, cabelas etc have NO FIREARMs signs that in fine print underneath say "except those legally carried for self defense" or something along those lines. It can be confusing unless you read the whole thing.

Ezek · Feb 23, 2015

OC for ME said:
The Arch Walk is a example of a municipality not desiring to challenge the current wording of Art I, Sec 23. If that language, A5, is nixxed based on the case before, or going to, the MO Supremes then the issue becomes complicated. If the Supremes do not nix the current language I suspect that no municipality will chance having their #1 intimidation tool tossed. But, it will take a cop to get the ball rolling. I have yet to have a cop stop me to check for my endorsement. I do little OCing during winter but I do not subscribe to the "concealed means concealed" mantra. In fact I am OCing cuz the bottom of my holster protrude beyond the bottom of my Carhart jacket.

the arch walk was also brought to the attention of local LE, as well as a large group of people being armed openly, not to mention the fact if the chief had squashed the arch walk, it would show his disdain for the new amendment, not squashing it was a political move in my opinion. and individual person oc'ing doesn't have the strength of numbers like they did, and the amendment language has had time to settle and be challenged in MO court. the Feb 25th hearing will be interesting for sure, especially since the courts will have the cities placing pressure on them to allow them to uphold their anti-oc law.

law is also FOR profit, if they keep their laws they generate revenue. revenue that pays the courts. so the question really becomes is it worth losing the revenue?

and to BB62, yeah figured that's how it was, lotta talk, little action on your part.

Morpheus97 · Feb 23, 2015

Ezek said:
and to BB62, yeah figured that's how it was, lotta talk, little action on your part.

You might want to rethink that statement. BB62 organized the Arch Walk, and I don't believe he even lives in MO. From what I know of him, he seems to be willing to back up what he says.

color of law · Feb 23, 2015

Morpheus97 said:
You might want to rethink that statement. BB62 organized the Arch Walk, and I don't believe he even lives in MO. From what I know of him, he seems to be willing to back up what he says.

What I know of BB62 is that he is the kind of guy that puts up. It's not wise to challenge the 6'-9" towering inferno.

BB62 · Feb 24, 2015

Morpheus97 said:
You might want to rethink that statement. BB62 organized the Arch Walk, and I don't believe he even lives in MO. From what I know of him, he seems to be willing to back up what he says.

<-----<blushes>

BB62 · Feb 24, 2015

Morpheus97 said:
You might want to rethink that statement. BB62 organized the Arch Walk, and I don't believe he even lives in MO. From what I know of him, he seems to be willing to back up what he says.

And further giving credit where it is due, Missourian LMTD was crucial to the success of the walk, as was Ohioan color of law.

color of law · Feb 24, 2015

OC for ME said:
The Arch Walk is a example of a municipality not desiring to challenge the current wording of Art I, Sec 23. If that language, A5, is nixxed based on the case before, or going to, the MO Supremes then the issue becomes complicated. If the Supremes do not nix the current language I suspect that no municipality will chance having their #1 intimidation tool tossed. But, it will take a cop to get the ball rolling. I have yet to have a cop stop me to check for my endorsement. I do little OCing during winter but I do not subscribe to the "concealed means concealed" mantra. In fact I am OCing cuz the bottom of my holster protrude beyond the bottom of my Carhart jacket.

Lets be clear, the argument before the court is:

THIS COURT SHOULD INVALIDATE THE AUGUST 5, 2014 ELECTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5, SJR 36, AMENDING ARTICLE I, SECTION 23 OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THERE WERE ELECTION IRREGULARITIES OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO CAST DOUBT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5 IN THAT EVERY VOTER HAD BEFORE HIM OR HER AN INSUFFICIENT AND UNFAIR BALLOT TITLE AND THE BALLOT TITLE DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 116.155, RSMO, THAT IT BE A TRUE AND IMPARTIAL STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE IN LANGUAGE NEITHER INTENTIONALLY ARGUMENTATIVE NOR LIKELY TO CREATE PREJUDICE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED MEASURE.

The wording of Amendment 5 is not before the court. What is before the court is the explanation as to what Amendment 5 was about for voting purposes.

OC for ME · Feb 24, 2015

What is before the court is whether or not Art I, Sec 23, stands as the law of the land in MO. The vehicle to get the amendment tossed is RSMo 116.155.

The cops knew that any challenge of a OCer would have resulted in a immediate legal challenge to their acts under Art I, Sec 23...no way anti-liberty Dotson is gunna risk that.

color of law · Feb 24, 2015

OC for ME said:
What is before the court is whether or not Art I, Sec 23, stands as the law of the land in MO. The vehicle to get the amendment tossed is RSMo 116.155.

The cops knew that any challenge of a OCer would have resulted in a immediate legal challenge to their acts under Art I, Sec 23...no way anti-liberty Dotson is gunna risk that.

I quoted what is before the court. The amendment itself is not before the court. Again, the wording used on the ballot initiative is what is in dispute.

The result will determine if the initiative will be voted on again. The wording of Amendment 5 is not before the court.

OC for ME · Feb 24, 2015

Under MO law a full text of a ballot issue must be available at the polling place. If any voter is confused, re the summary that is on their ballot, all they need do is ask to see it. A5 was laying on the table next to where you checked in to receive your ballot where I voted. As was every ballot measure.

I am confident that the voters knew exactly what A5 was and this is why they, we, voted 2 to 1 in favor of A5. Dotson don't like that we voted to restore liberty and to restrain the state even further.

RSMo 116.155 is being used to nix the A5 changes to Art I, Sec 23, nothing more and nothing less.

kcgunfan · Feb 24, 2015

To review the entire thing.

The SoS posted the ballot language at the appropriate time.

The St. Louis Police Chief et al. waited until after the deadline to contest the ballot language.

The SC said, "so sad, too bad, you snooze, you lose." The merits of their challenge wasn't even ruled on.

Now, they are wanting to overthrow the vote on the same issue, by saying the ballot language is still deficient.

In a sane world, the response would again be: "you snooze, you lose." And we'll likely get this response.

Renegadez · Feb 24, 2015

Ezek said:
and to BB62, yeah figured that's how it was, lotta talk, little action on your part.

Ezek I have conversed with BB62 in private messages regarding a sunshine request I was working on. This guy is from Ohio and came all the way to STL for the walk. The man is NO BS He says what he does and does what he says! You consider reading a bit on these forum before jumping in with your helmet on.

Ezek · Feb 24, 2015

Renegadez said:
Ezek I have conversed with BB62 in private messages regarding a sunshine request I was working on. This guy is from Ohio and came all the way to STL for the walk. The man is NO BS He says what he does and does what he says! You consider reading a bit on these forum before jumping in with your helmet on.

well, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, and apparently, I'm wrong. so you walk, and talk, that is good to know. and I hereby retract my statement.

but the fact your 6'9" doesn't have much relevance to the topic at hand, and to whoever stated it, I'm still not intimidated. would I go out of my way to provoke a reaction that would lead to physical confrontation? no, that's just a dumb game of whose balls are bigger.

if you organized the arch walk, then I commend you for your "protest" to color of law, and it was a good step, but I still feel the chief was playing politics by allowing it, as is obvious by the challenge of the amendment.

and to drive from Ohio to STL, hell of a drive, and to open carry after the whole Ferguson incident, ( more fire and riots) you got balls of steel for that, those guys are crazy, shooting at cops.

however I will say what I saw of people people protesting your march in the news are apparently the typical libtard looney toon trash trying to create a scene where none really exists.

BB62 · Feb 24, 2015

gutshot said:
I've stayed out of this discussion, because I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't live in Mo., I didn't attend the Arch walk and really don't know much about Mo. law. I feel forced to comment on this post. Of all the uninformed, misguided, ignorant and foolish posts I have seen on this or any other internet forum, this one is the worst of them all. BB62 has done more work and accomplished more than almost anyone that posts on OCDO. You sir, simply do not know what you are talking about or who you are talking about. You are wrong and not only that, you are as wrong as a person can be. You owe BB62 an apology and you owe him some respect, he certainly has mine. I hope you can learn to educate yourself before you open your mouth, particularly before you slander another person.

Oh my!

Thank you very kindly for the compliment, but there are a number of other people here on OCDO, such as yourself, who have accomplished a great deal - and I'm glad to be in your and their company, virtually and on the street. I've done what I've done, sometimes by myself, and sometimes with the help of able people who do and have done and accomplished things less publicly - such as the aforementioned LMTD and color of law. There are plenty of others here too. I certainly don't consider myself above other activists, except vertically!

Ezek,

Thanks for your retraction. I hope that you stick around, learn, and better yet become an activist in ways that you are capable of and comfortable with.

Changes to OC?

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate